WASHINGTON (May 18, 2007) — The 18 Democrats who recently criticized Pope Benedict XVI when he answered questions about Mexico’s legalizing abortion both misrepresented the Pope’s remarks and defied freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The position was noted by Sister Mary Ann Walsh, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Director of Media Relations in a May 18 statement, which follows.
Response to 18 Democrats
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, RSM
Director of Media Relations
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
In an unfortunate May 10 statement, 18 of the 88 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning Mexican lawmakers legalizing abortion. The Representatives’ statement misrepresents the Holy Father’s remarks and implies that the Church does not have a right to voice its teaching in the public square.
The Holy See has made clear that neither the Mexican bishops nor the Holy Father have excommunicated any legislator. Rather, the Holy See reiterated longstanding Church teaching that anyone who freely and knowingly commits a serious wrong, that is, a mortal sin, should not approach the Eucharist until going to confession.
“The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision of society.” (United States Catechism for Adults, p. 442) Consequently, every Catholic is obliged to respect human life, from conception until natural death.
To suggest that the Church should not clearly voice its teaching and apply it in a pluralistic society is to attack freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Catholic Church always will and must speak out against the destruction of innocent unborn children. The right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution that all legislators are elected to uphold. Speaking and acting against abortion is not a matter of partisan politics. It is a matter of life and death.
The bishops urge all Catholics, especially those who hold positions of public responsibility, to educate themselves about the teaching of the Church, and to seek pastoral advice so that they can make informed decisions with consistency and integrity.
Better Late than never I guess?
ReplyDeleteI like this rebuttal in many ways, but really, can the bishops not do away with phrases in their official documents which make reference to "a pluralistic society"-- phrases which implicitly relativize the truth-claims of the Church?
ReplyDeleteIf the Church is what it claims to be, then the Church's voice is not just one voice among many, having an equal right to speak out under "pluralism." Therefore, it seems a bit weak to invoke pluralism or freedom of speech as a primary defense.
But lest I be misunderstood, hurrah to the bishops for pointing out that Catholics do indeed have a right to speak their minds and voice their consciences.
Andy, you're right, they don't need to do that. But in a sense this language is Holy Mother Church anticipating the objection, the "you-ain't-the-boss-of-us-anymore", which comes from her modern rebellious children by pointing out this rather humble reason why she is allowed to teach them a remedial lesson in the public square.
ReplyDeleteSo although the Catholic Church has authority and the inherent right to speak to society that fact doesn't help the Church very much if those who need to hear the message most are in denial of that truth in some way, shape or form.
But even so, I'll admit it would be more satisfying to see them whacked with a ruler.
I read it as the USCCB saying, in effect, "You wanna talk as though the Church stands hat in hand before the American Experiment? You wanna be the great upholders of the U.S. Constitution? All right, then, riddle us this: How can you uphold the U.S. Constitution while attacking freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Why are the American congressmen more un-American than the German pope?"
ReplyDeleteIn short, answering the fools according to their folly.
It's not altogether impossible that I'm projecting somewhat.
In short, answering the fools according to their folly.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, Tom, and the point stands even if you are projecting a bit. St. Paul says something like "I've become all things to all men that I might save some." He also said that "Christ emptied Himself in the form of a servant" and that he was born "under the law" even though he wrote the law -- in a sense, He is the law (with apologies to Sylvester Stallone....)
So why try to persuade on the basis of authority which is the weakest argument anyway? The Church is conscious of her own history in this regard even if Pelosi, Kennedy et al need a constitutional refresher course.
Re Rod's latest post bashing Catholics and the Catholic Church (see his BeliefNot blog today, 5/25):
ReplyDeleteI have only this to say:
ocanews.org
ocanews.org
ocanews.org
How Rod can have the utter nerve to criticize ANY Catholic for ANYTHING while his own communion, roiled by unbelievable corruption at the highest levels, implodes before his very eyes, is beyond me.
Whew. Talk about chutzpah.
Talk about clueless.
Talk about OBSESSIVE unhinged anti-Catholicism.
And BTW--I am rapidly losing respect for Erin Manning.
Diane
Quick! Let me re-post this here before Rod Dreher deletes it at the Dreherria Blog. :) :) (I'm responding to an earlier commenter.)
ReplyDelete------
Let's see how well the Catholic faith survives in any meaningful sense in these families over the next couple of generations."
The same can - and should - be said of the Orthodox faith in America as well. I am certain that the percentage of spiritually sincere, for lack of a better term, Orthodox is no greater than the percentage of spiritually sincere Catholics. Most are muddling along the best they can.
Personally, I think the answer to your question is likely to be the same in both cases. How well will the Catholic - and the Orthodox - faith survive in any meaningful sense over the next couple of generations? Just fine, I expect.
Please don't confuse Rod with the facts. He has discovered yet another pretext for a Catholic-Bash. The fact that there are countless "utilitarian" (not to mention lukewarm, worldly, and uninvolved) Orthodox believers does not matter, apparently. Only Catholics qualify for Rod's holier-than-thou contempt.
As someone reminded me privately today, Rod once wrote that he switched to Orthodoxy because he could trust its "spiritual leaders" more than he could Catholicism's. Since then, the "spiritual leaders" of Rod's adopted OCA communion have been revealed as corrupt crooks and possibly worse. (See www.ocanews.org.) Rod has scarcely peeped about this, natch. This is of a piece with his selective treatment of lukewarmness and "utilitarianism" in this thread. Rod views reality through a peculiar set of spectacles--one that can register Catholic faults with 20-20 sharpness while blurring equivalent (or even worse) Orthodox faults into non-existence.
Why anyone gives credibility to such an obvious bigot is beyond me.
(fully expecting this post to be deleted but saving it nonetheless for posterity)
Diane
"And BTW--I am rapidly losing respect for Erin Manning."
ReplyDeletethat Erin Manning comment was hysterical, to wit "You're right rod! people who shop around for religion just don't get it!" but let's face it -- anyone who is tolerated at the dreherrea blog either doesn't have much to say or lacks basic powers of discernment in the first place.
So say I!
"You're right rod! people who shop around for religion just don't get it!"
ReplyDeleteBwahahahahaha!
but let's face it -- anyone who is tolerated at the dreherrea blog either doesn't have much to say or lacks basic powers of discernment in the first place.
You speak much wisdom, girl!
Dianonymous
i've noticed that the purveyor of dreherrea has taken a page from the book of Shearia and refrained from deleting his own comments chastising bubba for ... (i don't know, being smarter than dreher?)... while deleting the bubba-authored comments in question. a class act as usual
ReplyDelete